|Mario Massillamany, securities attorney|
This case stems from the fallout of Bernard Madoff’s multibillion dollar securities
investment Ponzi scheme. After the revelation of the massive Ponzi scheme engineered by Bernard Madoff, which consisted of him fraudulently soliciting millions of dollars in securities investment funds that were ultimately never invested, Irving Picard was appointed as a trustee to oversee the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities’ (BMIS) remaining assets pursuant to the Securities Investor Protection Act. Acting in his capacity as trustee, Mr. Picard elected to reimburse claimants that had invested funds with BMIS with the “Net Investment Method,” as outlined in the Securities Investor Protection Act. Under the “Net Investment Method,”claimants would be credited the amount of cash that they had deposited with BMIS minus any amounts withdrawn from their accounts prior to the Ponzi collapse.
A range of claimants filed this action with the bankruptcy court objecting to this allocation method, contending that the trustee should have elected to reimburse them using the “Last Statement Method,” which would have taken into account the fictitious investment gains that BMIS represented to their clients on their last customer report. Since those profits and rates of return were entirely fictitious and made up, it is no surprise that the court and trustee did not allow their recovery. The claimants then filed an appeal again seeking to recover not only the initial sum of their investments, but also the investment profits that the company claimed the investors had earned in their quarterly accounting statements.
The Second Circuit upheld the decision of the bankruptcy court, agreeing that the trustee’s use of the “Net Investment Method” of reimbursement was the appropriate and most equitable resolution to the unfortunate situation. The Second Circuit emphasized that the purpose of the Securities Investor Protection Act was to serve as a protection for investors against financial losses that results from the insolvency of their investment broker, not to prevent or reverse fraud. The Court of Appeals also leaned heavily on the equitable treatment of all claimants who were adversely impacted by the fraudulent
actions of BMIS. The court reasoned that use of the “Last Statement Method” to
distribute the assets of BMIS would be “absurd” due to the fact that all of the financial customer statements issued by BMIS were completely fabricated documents, created after the fact and not based on any type of actual investment by BMIS.
The court also stressed that using the “Last Statement Method”would create inequity within the class of claimants itself. The payment of any claim based on fictitiously created profits above a claimant’s initial investment would amount to taking away money from the pool of resources meant to go to reimburse all claimants for the sum that they initially invested. The result would be to favor those claimants who withdrew funds from their BMIS accounts that exceeded their initial investments as the expense of other claimants. The court rightfully held that such a result would only create an even worse situation out of the financial mess created by the BMIS Ponzi scheme.